TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric was a finished and marketable excisable product liable to duty; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that suppression or misdeclaration was not established.
Issue (i): Whether L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric was a finished and marketable excisable product liable to duty.
Analysis: The product had been disclosed to the department along with the manufacturing process, and permission had earlier been granted under Rule 57F(2). The demand was based on a later assumption that the substance was a finished article, but no independent investigation or reliable evidence was produced to establish marketability. The assessee had also filed affidavits stating that the goods were not bought or sold in the market. Marketability was treated as a factual requirement to establish excisability, and the record did not support the conclusion that the product was a finished marketable article.
Conclusion: The product was not proved to be a finished marketable excisable good, and the demand on merits failed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that suppression or misdeclaration was not established.
Analysis: The department had been supplied with the manufacturing details before permission was granted, and the same period was later covered by the show cause notice. Since the department had accepted the assessee's disclosure for the relevant procedure, suppression or intentional misdeclaration could not be inferred merely by changing its view later. No independent material was produced to justify invocation of the extended period.
Conclusion: The charge of suppression was not sustained, and the demand was time-barred in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Marketability must be independently proved as a factual precondition for excisability, and suppression cannot be invoked where the department had prior disclosure of the relevant facts and no contrary evidence is produced.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
